Using Teacher Read-Alouds to Enhance First Grade Student’s Vocabulary Development and Comprehension By Lauren E Ratliff A thesis submitted to the faculty of Wittenberg University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Education Department Wittenberg University July 7, 2015
89
Embed
Using Teacher Read-Alouds to Enhance First Grade Student's Vocabulary Development and
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Using Teacher Read-Alouds to Enhance First Grade Student’s Vocabulary Development and Comprehension
By
Lauren E Ratliff
A thesis submitted to the faculty of Wittenberg University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Education Department
Wittenberg University
July 7, 2015
ii
W I T T E N B E R G U N I V E R S I T Y
GRADUATE STUDIES IN EDUCATION
MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION COMMITTEE APPROVAL
of a thesis submitted by
(Lauren E Ratliff)
Each member of the following Thesis Committee has read and has found this thesis to be satisfactory. Date Chair: (Dr. Roberta Linder) Date (Dr. Sally Brannan) Date (Dee Thomas)
iii
W I T T E N B E R G U N I V E R S I T Y
F I N A L R E A D I N G A P P R O V A L
I have read the thesis of Lauren E Ratliff in its final form and have found that (1) its format, citations, and bibliographic style are consistent and acceptable; (2) its illustrative materials including figures, tables, and charts are in place; and (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory to the candidate’s thesis committee and is ready for submission to Wittenberg University. _________________ ______________________________________ Date (Dr. Roberta Linder) Chair: Thesis Committee
Approved for the Education Department
_________________________________________ (Dr. Roberta Linder)
Director of Graduate Studies
iv
Wittenberg University Honor Statement
Master of Arts in Education
“I affirm that my work upholds the highest standards of honesty and academic integrity at Wittenberg, and that I have neither given nor received any unauthorized assistance.” Name of Candidate: Lauren E Ratliff Signature Date Director of Graduate Studies: Dr. Roberta Linder Signature Date
v
Table of Contents
Thesis Committee Approval……………………………………….. ii
Final Reading Approval……………………………………………. iii
Honor Statement…………………………………………………… iv
Table of contents…………………………………………………… v
List of Tables………………………………………………………. vi
Abstract…………………………………………………………….. ix
Chapter 1………………………………………………………….... 1
Introduction…………………………………………………. 1
Background…………………………………………………. 1
Importance of study………………………………………… 2
Statement of the Problem…………………………………… 5
Research Questions…………………………………………. 5
Establishing the study………………………………………. 6
Limitations and Assumptions……………………………….. 7
Definitions of Terms………………………………………... 8
Summary……………………………………………………. 9
Chapter 2…………………………………………………………… 10
Literature Review…………………………………………… 10
Schema Theory and Foundational Research in Vocabulary... 11
vi
Vocabulary Instruction……………………………………… 15
Read-Alouds………………………………………………… 22
Summary……………………………………………………. 25
Chapter 3…………………………………………………………… 26
Methodology………………………………………………... 26
Research Design……………………………………………. 26
Participants…………………………………………………. 27
Setting……………………………………………………….. 28
Intervention/Treatment……………………………………… 29
Data Collection……………………………………………… 30
Data Analysis……………………………………………….. 32
Procedures…………………………………………………... 33
Summary……………………………………………………. 39
Chapter 4…………………………………………………………… 40
Findings……………………………………………………... 40
Research Question one……………………………………… 40
Research Question two……………………………………… 45
Summary……………………………………………………. 48
Chapter 5…………………………………………………………… 49
Discussion…………………………………………………... 49
Research Question one……………………………………… 49
vii
Research Question two……………………………………… 51
Reflections………………………………………………….. 54
Summary……………………………………………………. 55
References…………………………………………………………. 56
Appendices…………………………………………………………….
Appendix A 61
Appendix B 65
Appendix C 67
Appendix D 60
Appendix E 71
Appendix F 73
Appendix G 75
Appendix H 78
viii
List of Tables
Table 1 Rotation of Students for Journeys Story Retelling 30
Table 2 Weekly Schedule 35
Table 3 Scores of Journeys Weekly Comprehension Test 41
Table 4 Total points on Retelling Scoring form 43
Table 5 Elements Omitted From Student’s Retelling 44
Table 6 Weekly Vocabulary Pre/Post-Test 46
Table 7 Vocabulary Words Used in Oral Retelling 47
ix
Abstract
This study examined how the use of read-alouds impacted first grade students
vocabulary, background knowledge, and comprehension. Specifically, the research
questions were “How do read-alouds using picture books containing additional teacher-
selected vocabulary impact struggling first grade students’ understanding of the stories in
the basal reader?” and “How do read-alouds using picture books containing additional
teacher-selected vocabulary from the basal reader impact vocabulary development of
struggling first grade students?” Twenty, first grade students from a high poverty, urban
elementary school in the Midwest received the read-aloud intervention. Only Six first
grade students were selected for data collection purposes. The researcher examined the
Journeys (Baumann et al., 2011) basal reading stories and selected four vocabulary words
from the story, along with two picture books to read aloud for each Journeys story. The
researcher collected data on how many vocabulary words the students had learned and
how well the students comprehended the main Journeys story. The results indicated that
the use of read-alouds enhanced recognition of vocabulary words and their oral retelling
of the main story. The study provided methods for how to incorporate read-alouds in a
basal reading series that enhances student’s vocabulary, background knowledge and
comprehension.
Keywords: vocabulary, background knowledge, read-alouds, and comprehension.
Chapter One
Introduction
“It is estimated that children from economically privileged homes enter
kindergarten having heard some 30 million more words than students from economically
disadvantaged homes” (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2011, p. 226). This statistic from a study
conducted by Hart and Risley (2003) showed the importance of vocabulary instruction in
the classrooms of young students. The National Reading Panel (National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development [NICHHD], 2000) also found that vocabulary
plays a crucial role in student’s reading comprehension. If students from economically
disadvantaged homes are not being exposed to the vocabulary needed before they reach
kindergarten, then teachers need to find ways to build vocabulary that will help close the
vocabulary gap. Research has suggested that the vocabulary gap will continue to grow if
it is not addressed in schools today.
Background
The study was conducted in a first grade classroom in one of ten elementary
schools in an urban school district located in the Midwest. On the 2013-2014 state report
card, the school did not meet the indicator for reading achievement for students in grades
three through six (Ohio Department of Education [ODE], 2014). It was noted that in the
2012-2013 school year, 87 K-3 students were not on track for reading. This meant that
students were not reading on level according to the Diagnostic Reading Assessment
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
2
(DRA), and were not on track for passing the third grade reading achievement
test, therefore were at risk for retention. Of the 87 students, 27 of were on track by the
20132014 school year according to the DRA (ODE, 2014). The school building is a
Kindergarten through sixth-grade building. There are three Kindergarten teachers, four
first-grade teachers, three second-grade teachers, three third-grade teachers, three fourth-
grade teachers, two fifth-grade teachers and two sixth-grade teachers. There are also three
full time intervention specialists and one half-day intervention specialist. Each grade
level has one Title I tutor that pulls small reading groups for students who are reading
below grade level.
The researcher graduated in December 2010 with a Bachelor of Science in
education and a license to teach both special education K-12 and general education
grades PreK-3. The researcher also holds a 4/5-generalist endorsement. The researcher is
currently teaching in a first grade classroom in an urban school district. This was the
researchers’ third year of teaching first grade in this building.
Importance of the Study
According to the National Reading Panel (NICHHD, 2000), “Vocabulary is one
of the most important areas within comprehension” (p. 236). The National Reading Panel
stated, “reading comprehension is a cognitive process that integrates complex skills and
cannot be understood without examining the crucial role of vocabulary learning and
instruction” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 228). Because vocabulary has an impact on students’
reading comprehension, teachers need to equip themselves with researched-based
strategies that will foster vocabulary growth to strengthen students’ reading
comprehension.
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
3
This research is significant for the researcher, students’ reading comprehension,
and other interested teachers in the school. This study is significant to the researcher
because it was noticed that sometimes students in the first grade classroom appeared to
need additional instruction in order to have the necessary vocabulary and background
knowledge to comprehend the Journeys Basal reading stories. This was shown in the
students’ low scores on the Journeys weekly comprehension tests. As a result, the
researcher determined that the basal readers selected vocabulary words that did not
sufficiently develop or provide the vocabulary that the students needed in order to
comprehend the material. Therefore, the researcher wanted to find ways to help develop
and expand on the students’ vocabulary and comprehension development through the use
of read-alouds that were aligned to the basal reader.
The researcher was interested in the research of Hart and Risley (2003) who
studied how vocabulary and background knowledge differ in families under different
socio-economic groups, and they found that there is a significant vocabulary gap between
different socio-economic groups. The results of their study showed “the average child on
welfare was having half as much experience per hour (616 words per hour) as the average
working class child (1,251 words per hour) and less than one-third than the average child
in a professional family (2,153 words per hour” (p.116). The researcher noticed there was
a significant need in her first grade classroom to develop students’ vocabulary in order to
strengthen the students’ reading comprehension.
In addition, the researcher had been concerned about the vocabulary words
selected by the Journeys (Baumann et al., 2011) basal series because the words selected
appeared to be tier 1 words that were more sight word based. Wright and Neuman (2013)
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
4
examined four of the most commonly used core reading curricula, and found that “Across
all programs, there were few opportunities to learn challenging words, and there was little
systematic instruction to support their learning or retention” (Wright & Neuman, 2013, p.
402). Similar to these findings and because of the Journeys weekly vocabulary
instruction, the researcher felt the need to look at other vocabulary words in the basal
reader that were tier 2 words and to provide more opportunities for the students to learn
these words through the use of read-alouds.
The research could also be important to the first grade students. Based on the
district’s new guidelines as necessitated by The Third Grade Reading Guarantee (ODE,
2015), if the first grade students are unable to read a level I DRA book independently,
they are considered for retention in the first grade. The researcher noted that most
students are reading fluently but struggled to pass the comprehension section of the DRA
and weekly basal reader tests. The basal reading series chose some vocabulary words
that are more sight word based and did not address other vocabulary words related to
build background knowledge the students needed for comprehension. For example, your
and these were two words the basal reader selected as vocabulary words in one of the
stories. First grade students should develop automaticity in recognizing these words, but
there were additional words in the stories that students might not understand and needed
to learn if they were to comprehend the stories. It was noticed that the comprehension test
often used vocabulary words that the basal reader did not address in the lessons.
Therefore, developing students’ vocabulary and schema was very important to helping
them expand and build upon their vocabulary. Tracey and Morrow (2012) define Schema
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
5
theory as “a constructivist theory that explains how knowledge is created and used by
learners” (Tracey & Morrow, 2012, p. 62).
In addition, this was significant to the other teachers because they were
experiencing the same difficulties with the basal readers with their students. District
wide, all teachers were expected to follow the basal reader selected by the district. If the
basal reader is not selecting vocabulary that is able to build students’ schema, then
teachers needed to find ways to supplement their basal reader instruction.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact that read-alouds had on
building students’ background knowledge and vocabulary related to stories in the
Journeys (Baumann et al., 2011) basal reading series. It was noticed in the first grade
classroom that many students appeared to lack the vocabulary and background
knowledge needed to understand the Journeys basal reader stories. Since it was noticed
that students in the first grade classroom were struggling with background knowledge and
comprehension, the researcher began looking into two questions that drove the study.
Research Questions
During the study the researcher sought to answer the following questions.
1. How do read-alouds using picture books containing additional teacher-selected
vocabulary impact struggling first grade students’ understanding of the stories in
the basal reader?
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
6
2. How do read-alouds using picture books containing additional teacher-selected
vocabulary from the basal reader impact vocabulary development of struggling
first grade students?
Establishing the Study
The researcher established the study first by getting approval from the school
principal and Wittenberg University Institutional Review Board (IRB). After receiving
approval, the researcher collected informed consents for each participant in the study.
Before the study began the researcher looked through the Journeys (Baumann et al.,
2011) basal reader stories, along with the comprehension tests, to select additional
vocabulary words that were used during the study. After selecting the words for each
story during the study, the researcher created the vocabulary pre/post-test and selected
two picture books for each Journeys lesson that were used as read-alouds during the
study.
After collecting all the material the researcher began the study the week of March
16, 2015. During the study the researcher followed a weekly routine where she gave a
pre-test every Monday at 9:00 am, and a post-test every Friday at 9:00 am. The
researcher read the first picture book on Monday and Tuesday and the second picture
book on Wednesday and Thursday. Along with the vocabulary post-test, on Fridays the
researcher also gave the Journeys weekly comprehension test to all students. The
researcher also met with six students on Fridays to hold a reading conference where the
students completed a retelling of the Journeys story for the week. During the retelling the
researcher pulled three students who participated in the study and three students who did
not. This was done so that the students who participated in the study did not feel singled
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
7
out during the study. Throughout the week the researcher reviewed the teacher selected
vocabulary words with the entire class.
Limitations and Assumptions
The first limitation was the two week-long breaks during the study for spring
break and benchmark testing. Having a consistent time frame during the intervention
could have impacted the student’s vocabulary development more. Another limitation the
researcher noticed, was that two students who participated in the study were absent
multiple times throughout the interventions and missed reviewing the vocabulary words
and listening to the picture book read-aloud. Next it was noticed when the researcher was
looking for read-alouds that used the vocabulary words selected, the researcher was able
to find books with two to three vocabulary words but struggled to find picture books with
all four vocabulary words in them. The researcher was able to find picture examples of
the missing words in the picture books that were selected. During the read-aloud of the
picture book, the researcher would stop and point out the picture of the example of the
vocabulary word. Finally, the small number of participants and the context of the study
limit the generalizability of the study.
The researcher assumed that the district would continue to use the Journeys
(Baumann et al., 2011) basal reading series. The researcher assumed that the district
would also continue to require the students to take the Journeys comprehension test each
week on Friday. It is also assumed by the researcher that district will still follow
guidelines necessitated by the Ohio Department of Education’s third grade reading
guarantee and continue to monitor students’ reading progress in first grade.
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
8
Definition of Terms
The researcher used the following terms consistently throughout this study:
Basal series: A complex selection of reading selections, support materials and
assessments held together by a hefty teachers edition. (Dewitz & Jones, 2012, p.
292)
Direct Instruction: “where teachers explicitly focus students’ attention on
specific isolated reading skills and provide information to students about those
topics” (Morrow, Tracey, & Del Nero, 2011, p. 69)
Exploratory Mixed Methods: “The educator-researcher first collects quantitative
data and then gathers additional qualitative data in order to help support, explain
or elaborate on the quantitative results.” (Mertler, 2014, p. 104)
Picture Books: “Tell stories using both words and pictures” (O’Neal, 2011, p.
214)
Read-Aloud: “reading aloud to children—sometimes also referred to as shared
storybook reading—is a productive means for giving students opportunities to
develop new-meaning vocabulary” (Blackowicz & Fisher, 2011, p. 227).
Retelling: Explaining what happened in a story in sequential order using
characters and setting. (Dunst, Simkus & Hamby, 2012.)
Schema: explains how knowledge is created and used by learners. (Tracey &
Morrow, 2013, p. 62)
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
9
Third Grade Reading Guarantee: “A program to identify students from
kindergarten through grade 3 that are behind in reading. Schools will provide help
and support to make sure students are on track for reading success.” (ODE, 2015).
Summary
The purpose of this study was to identify the impact that read-alouds had on
students’ reading comprehension and vocabulary development. With the problem
statement and questions in place, the researcher began to study more information about
schema theory and foundational research in vocabulary, vocabulary instruction and read-
alouds. Chapter two presents the research found to support this study.
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
10
Chapter Two
Literature Review
Since economically disadvantaged children are entering school with smaller
vocabularies than children from economically privileged homes (Blachowicz & Fisher,
2011). Hart and Risley examined other ways to help students in economically
disadvantaged homes increase their vocabulary development and background knowledge.
The review of research by the National Reading Panel (NICHHD, 2000) has found that
by increasing children’s vocabulary development and background knowledge their
comprehension will improve.
Researchers like Marzano, Beck, McKeown, Blachowicz, and Fisher, have
examined the type of vocabulary words that should be taught to children in the primary
grades and have examined the best practices when teaching new vocabulary to students.
According to Blachowicz and Fisher (2011), “listening to books that are read aloud helps
students to go beyond their existing oral vocabularies and presents them with new
concepts and vocabulary” (p. 227).
Researchers have also found that building students’ vocabulary helps to increase
their background knowledge and allows students to better comprehend and understand
what they have read. This chapter will present the research behind background
knowledge or schema, effective researched-based vocabulary instruction used in
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
11
classrooms today, and research that supports the use of read-alouds as a way to build
students background knowledge and vocabulary in the primary classroom. A review of
the literature that informed this study focused on three specific areas of literacy research.
1. Schema theory and foundational research in vocabulary
2. Vocabulary instruction
3. Read-alouds
Schema Theory and Foundational Research in Vocabulary
Tracey and Morrow (2012) defined Schema theory “as a constructivist theory
that explains how knowledge is created and used by learners” (p. 62). The important
characteristics of schema theory are that everyone’s schema is individualized, and
knowledge structures are pliant and expandable. According to Tracey and Morrow,
Schema theory has three processes: (1) accretation where learners take in new
information but do not change existing schemata, (2) tuning where the existing schemata
is modified to incorporate new information, and (3) restructuring where new schema is
created because the old one is no longer sufficient (p. 63). Tracey and Morrow stated that
students use their schemata for developing content and growing in the reading processes.
“In Schema Theory students actively construct and revise their schemata as they read and
learn” (Tracey & Morrow, 2012, p. 64). Students are constantly constructing and
revising their schemata as they read, and instruction related to the reading processes is
valuable when developing the students schemata, teachers should build background
knowledge before reading with the students (p.63).
Justice, Meier, and Walpole (2005) described theoretical perspectives on
vocabulary development in their article about learning new words from storybooks. They
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
12
described three vocabulary processes on which they focused their study: (1) novel word
learning through incidental exposure, (2) novel word learning as a gradual process, and
(3) novel word learning as a developmental process influenced by adult input variations
(p.18). Justice, Meier, and Walpole described incidental exposures as “situations in
which children informally experience unknown words” (p. 18). This occurs when a child
hears a word after listening to a story, watching television, listening to the radio etc.
Novel word learning was described as “ a gradual process in which word representations
progressively develop from immature, incomplete representations to mature, accurate
representations” (p. 18). During Novel word learning as a developmental process, adult
input influenced children when they were exposed to new words because of their
interactions with adults (p. 19).
Researchers Little and Box (2011) have also found evidence that supports the use
of building children’s schema. In their study on how graphic organizers impact schema
theory, they found that schemata accounts for “how we organize and store information in
our brains and arrange this information to allow us to gain knowledge concerning new
concepts presented to us” (pp. 25-26). In addition, Little and Box (2011) found that many
students struggle with text-based curriculums because they lack background knowledge
in order to relate to the vocabulary and comprehend the story. Little and Box (2011)
noticed “daily reading exercises become a more daunting task due to their lack of tools
(prior knowledge and experiences related to the concepts being taught and read)” (p. 24).
When reading becomes difficult for students to understand and make connections with,
then teachers need to start to find strategies to build and expand their schema. The
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
13
authors stated, “Since prior knowledge is essential for the comprehension of new
knowledge, teachers need to assist students in building prerequisite knowledge” (p.25).
Since prior knowledge is needed in order for students to comprehend the story and
many students appear to lack prior knowledge, researchers Hart and Risley (2003) began
researching where the lack of vocabulary and background knowledge began. They started
observing what was happening in the homes of economically disadvantaged children.
Hart and Risley (2003) observed 42 families from different socio-economic statuses, and
recorded the words used by parents and the children in the home. Their goal was to
discover what was happening in the children’s early experience that may have been
contributing to the vocabulary gap that was found among the different socio-economic
statuses. Hart and Risely collected data by the using one-hour observations once a month
through the use of recordings and transcriptions of their observations. After the study was
completed, Hart and Risley also did a follow up on 29 of the students when they were in
third grade. The researchers found, “families on welfare not only had smaller
vocabularies than did children of the same age in professional families, but they were
also adding words more slowly” (p. 114). The researchers also found “86 percent to 98
percent of the words recorded in each child’s vocabulary consisted of words also
recorded in their parents’ vocabularies” (p.112). These data showed “the average child on
welfare was having half as much experience per hour (616 words per hour) as the average
working class child (1,251 words per hour) and less than one-third that the average child
in a professional family (2,153 words per hour” (p.116). Based on this study, Hart
and Risley found that because so much is happening in those first three years and
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
14
children are relying on the parents for all their experiences, by age three an intervention
must address the gaps in background knowledge and exposure to words (p. 117).
Along with Hart and Risley, Little and Box (2011) found evidence that supports
the use of parents talking and exposing their children to vocabulary during the early
stages of a their development. Little and Box (2011) found that, “A mother who reads,
sings and talks to the child during the prenatal period is very much presenting the child
with early acquisition of sounds and speech” (p. 25). Little and Box discovered that by
doing this, a mother is allowing for early literacy to be stored permanently in the child’s
schemata. Research like this supports what others have found when it comes to
developing children’s schema and background knowledge during the early years of
development which is the importance of parent and child talk and the impact of socio-
economic status. Researchers Little and Box (2011) stated, “a most critical span of time
occurs from the day of birth to ages of four and five in which the child, with intense
acquisition, begins to store countless concepts in the brain” (p. 25). Overall, children’s
schema helps them when reading and comprehending new material because, as Little and
Box found, “a reader’s prior knowledge and experiences about events, concepts,
vocabulary, and objects described in a text passage can have a significant influence on
the meaning the student obtains from the text passage” (p. 26).
The research behind children’s background knowledge proved to play a
significant role in the reading processes of young children. The above researchers have
all found that the most prominent time to influence children’s schema happens during
those early years spent at home. These researchers have found that it is important for
parents to talk and expose their children to vocabulary and background knowledge that
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
15
will help them become successful readers. The next section of this review will look at
research based vocabulary instruction used in classrooms today.
Vocabulary Instruction
Hart and Risley’s (2003) study motivated the researcher into finding the best ways
to teach vocabulary in order to help students close the vocabulary gap. The topics of
vocabulary instruction in basal reading series and methods of vocabulary instruction are
addressed in the following sections.
Vocabulary in basal reading series. Wright and Neuman (2013) examined
vocabulary instruction provided by core reading material. Wright and Neuman found that
it is important to examine models for teaching vocabulary in the classroom in order to
supplement existing reading programs. The researchers looked at the teacher’s editions in
four core reading curriculums which included Houghton Mifflin Reading Street, Scott
Foresman Reading, Harcourt Trophies, and Treasures (p. 390). Wright and Neuman
wanted find how many words were being taught, the difficulty level of the words, and the
instructional regime that each of the reading programs followed. They looked at those
areas of vocabulary instruction because research has shown that in order to have effective
vocabulary instruction, those three elements need to be researched and followed. Wright
and Neuman found that “across all programs, there were few opportunities to learn
challenging words, and there was little systematic instruction to support learning or
retention” (p. 402). With these being commonly used reading programs in schools today
and finding that the instruction is not sufficiently supporting word learning or retention,
the researcher began looking at other forms of vocabulary instruction that can enhance
reading programs such as these.
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
16
Popular vocabulary instructional strategies. First the researcher looked at
Berne and Blachowicz’s (2008) study on what reading teachers were saying about
vocabulary instruction. Berne and Blachowicz asked teachers to provide their questions
and concerns on vocabulary instruction. The authors surveyed 72 educators, 21 from
a Listserve survey and 51 from a professional meeting. Berne and Blachowicz (2008)
noted several concerns of the respondents. The number one concern was, “How can we
develop a consistent approach to vocabulary learning in my building/district?” (p.319).
This was a need that many teachers were struggling with especially when the students are
coming into the classroom with a lack of background knowledge that influences the
students’ understanding of the story.
Based on the survey, it was found that among the most cited instructional
strategies were read-alouds and songs as well as games and play. These strategies have
proven to be effective for the primary grades, and research has suggested that they were
not only valuable for struggling readers but for students who were English Language
Learners (ELLs) as well. Silverman (2007) found “many children whose home language
is not English have more limited English Vocabularies compared to their monolingual
English peers” (p. 98). Since struggling readers who speak English only are not the only
ones needing their vocabularies enriched, other researchers like Hickman, Pollard-
Durodola, and Vaughn (2004) researched vocabulary strategies using storybook reading.
Hickman et al. found, “the success of this story read-aloud practice for the increased
comprehension and oral language development of English Language Learners is
dependent not only on the teacher’s selection of texts and vocabulary words but also the
implementation of the lesson design” (p. 725). These researchers followed a lesson
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
17
design that included introducing the story and three new vocabulary words on day one.
On days two, three, and four the researchers reread the story passage and reviewed the
vocabulary words. On day five the researchers extended the comprehension and focused
attention on a more in-depth look on three of the vocabulary words.
Marzano’s six-step process. One researcher who designed another procedure to
teach vocabulary was Marzano (2010), and this is the six-step process for teaching
vocabulary.
1. The teacher provides a description, explanation, or example of the new term.
2. Students restate the explanation of the new term in their own words.
3. Students create a nonlinguistic representation of the term.
4. Students periodically engage in activities that help them add to their knowledge of the vocabulary term.
5.Periodically, students are asked to discuss terms with one another.
6.Periodically, students are involved in games that allow them to play with the terms. (p. 23)
Marzano (2010) broke down his six step process into three phases, (1) the
introductory phase teaching vocabulary terms which involves the first three steps, (2) the
comparison phase helping the students develop the distinctions between the meaning of
the new words, (3) The review and refinement phase this is where teachers expand
students understanding to the term (p. 24). Marzano’s six-step process used a variety of
approaches to vocabulary instruction that addressed the range of word knowledge,
linguistic background, learning styles, and literacy abilities existing in today’s
classrooms.
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
18
Similar to Marzano’s six-step process, Blachowicz and Fisher (2011)
recommended a six step guideline for teaching vocabulary instruction.
1. Build a word-rich environment
2. Develop independent word learners.
3. Use instructional strategies.
4. Provide explicit instruction for important content and concept vocabulary.
5. Use assessments that match the goal of instruction.
6. Integrate vocabulary instruction across the curriculum. (p. 225)
Blachowicz and Fisher stated, “teachers are increasingly faced with a diverse group of
learners in terms of current word knowledge, linguistic background, learning styles, and
literacy abilities” (p. 225).
Effective vocabulary instruction. Additional studies support how to effectively
teach vocabulary in the classroom. Coyne and Byrnes (2007) did an action research study
on ways to engage children with useful vocabulary words in a third grade classroom.
Coyne and Byrnes followed Beck and McKeown’s teaching on tier two words with
activities to help students develop deeper understanding of the words. In the study, the
authors wanted to find what instructional procedures for vocabulary support children’s
use of literacy, and how instructional strategies for teaching vocabulary differ in
supporting third grade children using vocabulary in oral and written
communication. Coyne and Byrnes found that children in the instruction group had
learned more vocabulary words than students in the traditional group. Group two had
learned four to five more words per week, whereas group one had learned an average of
two more words per week. Coyne and Byrnes (2007) concluded that reading aloud
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
19
accompanied by explanation of unfamiliar words as they occur in the story to be an
effective method of teaching children the meaning of words (p. 287).
Another example of effective vocabulary instruction is the idea of teaching depth
vs. breadth. In the article by Coyne, McCoach, Loftus, Zipoli, and Kapp (2009), they
compare and contrast breadth vs. depth through direct instruction in a kindergarten
classroom. Coyne et al. (2009) describe teaching vocabulary for breadth as the embedded
vocabulary instructional approach that focuses on teaching many word meanings without
in-depth discussion. Depth is described as the opposite; it is the extended vocabulary
instruction, and this instructional approach provides students with extended opportunities
to discuss and interact with words outside story readings (p. 2). Other researchers like
Beck, McKeown and Kucan (2002) have developed and followed strategies for teaching
with depth over breadth. Beck et al. feel that choosing two to three tier two words allows
the students to use the words in many contexts (p. 70).
Robust vocabulary instruction. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) provided a
framework for teaching vocabulary. They designed a robust vocabulary instruction,
which is defined as “instruction that offers rich information about words and their uses,
provides frequent and varied opportunities for students to think about and use words, and
enhances students’ language comprehension and production” (p. 2). Beck et al. suggested
that teachers include the following steps when using robust vocabulary instruction: (1)
choosing words to teach (2) introducing vocabulary (3) developing vocabulary (4)
making the most of the natural contexts (5) enriching the verbal environment.
When choosing words to teach, Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) focused on
looking at the three different tiers of words. Tier One words are the most basic words,
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
20
Tier Two are high frequency words, and Tier Three words included words whose
frequency is quite low. The authors recommend providing instruction on Tier Two words
because “the instruction of these words can add productively to an individual’s language
ability” (p. 16).
For the identification of tier two words, Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002)
recommend the following criteria: (1) importance and utility (2) instructional potential,
(3) conceptual understanding (p. 19). Importance and utility is described by the
researchers as, “words that are characteristic of mature language users and appear
frequently across a variety of domains” (p. 19). Instructional potential is described by the
researchers as, “ Words that can be worked with in a variety of ways so that students can
build rich representations of them and of their connections to other words and concepts”
(p. 19). Conceptual understanding is described as “Words for which students understand
the general concept but provide precision and specificity in describing the concept” (p.
19).
For introducing the vocabulary to students, Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002)
provide four steps to follow: (1) provide initial word meaning information through
definition, (2) provide meaning information through instructional contexts, (3) provide
meaning as words are encountered, (4) engage students in dealing with word meanings
(pp. 32-44). When providing initial word meaning information the researchers suggest
making sure that instructors develop student friendly explanations of the words by (1)
characterizing the word and (2) explaining the meanings in everyday language (pp. 35-
36). The authors described instructional contexts as “contexts that have been developed
with the intention of providing strong clues to a word’s meaning” (p. 39). The researchers
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
21
found four ways in which educators can engage students with word meanings: (1) word
associations, (2) have you ever, (3) applause and (4) idea completions (pp.44-45). Beck et
al. used word associations by “asking students to associate one of their new words with a
presented word or phrase” (p. 44). They used have you ever as a way to have the students
associate words using their own experiences (p. 45). In Applause “the students clap in
order to indicate how much they would like to be described by the target words” (p. 45).
Idea completions “provide students with sentence stems that required them to integrate a
word’s meaning into a context in order to explain the situation” (p. 45).
When developing the vocabulary for the primary grades Beck, McKeown, and
Kucan (2002) recommend the following basic instructional sequence
1. Read the story.
2. Contextualize the word within the story.
3. Have the children say the word.
4. Provide a student-friendly explanation of the word.
5. Present examples of the word used in contexts different from the story
context.
6. Engage children in activities that get them to interact with the words.
7. Have children say the word. (pp. 65-66)
When reviewing this literature, it is apparent that researchers have found many
different frameworks for vocabulary instruction as described in this section. A common
strategy, which is used to develop vocabulary especially in the primary grades, is the use
of read-alouds. The next section will describe specifically how read-alouds are being
used to expand students’ background knowledge and vocabulary.
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
22
Read-Alouds
Researchers like Justice, Meier, and Walpole (2005) along with Kindle (2009)
have found that reading aloud to children not only provides a rich context for word
learning but gives children a vehicle for learning unknown words. In the primary grades,
reading aloud to students happens frequently if not daily throughout the school year.
Since many students who live in economically disadvantaged homes along with students
who speak English as a second language may have been exposed to fewer words in their
homes, it is important to find a way to close the gap and provide students opportunities to
build upon their vocabulary. Research is showing that use of read-alouds is one way
teachers can build students’ vocabulary. Kindle (2009) found “Read-alouds fill the gap
by exposing children to book language, which is rich in unusual words and descriptive
language” (p. 202). Kindle found research for how children acquire new vocabulary but
very little research for how teachers teach new words as they read aloud. Kindle’s
research determined that “Teachers must select appropriate texts, identify words for
instruction, and choose strategies that facilitate word learning” (p. 202). Research has
also shown that read-alouds can help to impact a reader’s comprehension, vocabulary and
oral language. Hickman, Pollard-Durodola, and Vaughn (2004) found in their study that
“teacher read-alouds are perhaps the most consistent activity used by classroom teachers
that provides frequent, if not daily, opportunities to enhance literacy of ELLs by
integrating effective vocabulary development practices” (p. 721). According to Hickman
et al. (2004), there are five elements to story read-alouds, (1) introducing and previewing
the story and vocabulary words, (2) reading a passage from the story, (3) rereading the
passage, (4) extending comprehension, and (5) summarizing what was read (p. 725).
Research by Kindle (2009) and Hickman et al. (2004) showed that by using these read-
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
23
aloud elements along with selecting appropriate text and identifying words, students can
learn the vocabulary needed in order to extend their comprehension.
In a study by Baker, Chard, Fien, Park, and Otterstedt (2013), the authors
evaluated the use of a read-aloud intervention to improve comprehension and vocabulary
in a first grade classroom. This intervention used 12 teachers who participated in a read
aloud intervention using both narrative and expository texts. The authors measured both
listening comprehension outcomes and expressive outcomes. The authors targeted
students who were at risk for language or literacy difficulties. Baker et al. (2013) found
that read-aloud interventions had significant effects on student’s narrative retellings and
vocabulary outcomes (p. 346).
Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) researched ways to build vocabulary through
robust vocabulary instruction. In their research, they found that teachers needed to build
the vocabulary of beginning readers by extending instruction beyond what the students
are able to read. Most of the books the young students are required to read include tier 1
words, but the authors found that young children can “understand much more
sophisticated content presented in oral language than they can read independently.” (p.
48). These researchers found that since young children’s listening and speaking skills
were more advanced, teachers should read-aloud trade books. By listening to read-alouds,
students have an opportunity to build the background knowledge needed to understand
vocabulary in texts. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan recommended, “that after a story has
been read the teacher can describe a character or incident with an interesting word” (p.
48). When teachers do this, the students then begin to make connections to words and in
turn learn new vocabulary.
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
24
Another study that supported the use of read-alouds was conducted by Silverman
(2007) on the comparison of vocabulary instruction during read-alouds in kindergarten.
Silverman examined three different methods for promoting children’s word learning: (1)
contextualized instruction (2) contextualized instruction augmented by analytical
instruction, and (3) contextualized instruction augmented by analytical instruction and
anchored instruction. Silverman used a quasi-experimental design through a six-week
storybook vocabulary intervention in six kindergarten classrooms. In this study, each
teacher followed a three-day lesson plan format using the same children’s books and
targeted vocabulary words. On day 1, Silverman had the teacher read the book while
stopping on pages to target instruction on certain words, day 2 she had the teacher read
the book without stopping and then ask questions about target words in the book after the
reading, and on day 3 the teacher did not read the book but had the students retell the
story (p. 101). Silverman found, “to teach children sophisticated words, teachers should
use activities that structure students’ opportunities to analyze and use those words in
many contexts” (p. 109).
Since read-alouds have been found to play an important role in the primary
classrooms and many teachers read-aloud everyday, researchers like Silverman (2007)
have found “that engaging children in active analysis of word meanings is more effective
at promoting their learning of new words to the context of a story” (Silverman, 2007,
p.107). Researchers like Silverman (2007), Hickman et al. (2004), and Beck et al. (2002)
have found that it is important to remember that when reading-aloud, teachers should
following a similar format each time such as, (1) discussing the unknown vocabulary
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
25
words, (2) limiting the vocabulary words to around 2-4 words, (3) rereading the story,
and (4) asking questions.
Summary
The research has shown that there are many ways to help enhance a student’s
vocabulary development. In order begin building on a student’s vocabulary knowledge,
teachers must first understand the student’s schema or background knowledge, then begin
finding vocabulary that will enhance their word knowledge in an in-depth way, and
finally follow a research-based instructional regime. After researching the use of read-
alouds in the classroom and effective vocabulary strategies, the researcher began setting
up the research questions and design of the study. Chapter 3 describes the design of the
study.
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
26
Chapter Three
Methodology
The researcher planned to investigate how read-alouds using picture books
containing additional teacher-selected vocabulary impacted struggling first grade
students’ reading comprehension. She also wanted to determine how read-alouds using
picture books containing teacher-selected vocabulary from the basal reader impacted
vocabulary development of struggling first grade students. This chapter describes the
design, participants, and procedures that the researcher used in the study.
Research Design
In order to answer the research questions, the researcher used an exploratory
mixed methods design, using both quantitative and qualitative data (Mertler, 2014,
p.104). For qualitative data, the researcher conducted student conferences with retellings
once a week to assess how well the students were able to apply the weekly researcher-
selected vocabulary words. For quantitative data the researcher administered a weekly
pre- and post-test on all vocabulary words that were taught during the research. The
teacher scored the students’ tests based on the amount of words they knew and
understood before and after teacher read-alouds. She also used the weekly comprehension
test scores of the basal reading series to note any changes in scores. The researcher
analyzed the scores (number correct out of ten) earned by students on the comprehension
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
27
tests before and during the study. A third source of quantitative data was the numerical
score earned on the retellings.
Using an exploratory mixed methods approach was appropriate for this study
because the researcher gained qualitative data on students’ reading comprehension and
vocabulary development. The quantitative data were used to show an in-depth look at
how the read-aloud impacted the students' vocabulary development and comprehension
scores.
Participants
The study was conducted in a first grade classroom in one of ten elementary
schools in an urban school district located in the Midwest. The first grade classroom was
a self-contained classroom where all subjects were taught throughout the day. The first
grade classroom included 20 students total, fourteen boys and seven girls. Four of the
students were receiving English as a second language (ESL) service. The researcher
collected data from six students who were identified as struggling readers based on their
weekly comprehension and vocabulary test scores, along with the STARS reading
assessment and DRA scores. The whole class received the read aloud intervention and
took the tests, however, data were collected only from the six selected students.
The six students who were selected for data collection purposes were identified as
“needing intervention” according to the STARS reading assessment and DRA used by the
district and based on scores obtained in December of 2014. All six students had also been
placed on a reading improvement monitoring plan (RIMP). Student one was a seven-
year-old white female whose DRA level fell within the kindergarten range and STARS
result indicated, “needing urgent intervention.” Student two was a seven-year-old
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
28
Hispanic male whose DRA level fell within kindergarten range and STARS results
indicated, “needing urgent intervention.” Student three was a seven-year-old white male
whose DRA level fell within the kindergarten range and STARS results indicated needing
urgent intervention. Student four was an eight-year-old African American male who was
repeating first grade. His DRA level fell within the beginning first grade range and
STARS results indicated needing intervention. Student five was a seven-year-old African
American female whose DRA level fell within the beginning first grade range and
STARS results indicated needing intervention. Student six was a seven-year-old Hispanic
male whose DRA level fell within the beginning first grade range and STARS results
indicated needing intervention. All six of the students were receiving Title I tutoring
services four days a week for 50 minutes.
Setting
The researcher’s literacy block was conducted in the morning from 9:00 am to
10:45 am. The classroom consisted of a student library where the books were leveled A-I
according to the Fountas and Pinnell leveling system. During the opening period of the
reading block (9:00 am to 9:30 am), the researcher either administered the pre/post test,
read aloud one of the two read-alouds selected for the week, or read the main story from
the Journeys basal reader (Baumann et al., 2011) for the week. During the read-alouds,
the students sat in the carpet area that was in front of the white boards. The vocabulary
words were displayed along with the weekly target skill and basal reading focus wall.
During the pre/post test the students remained at their desks and were given folders to put
up on their desks to keep others from looking at their papers. When reading the weekly
story from the Journeys series, the students remained at their desks and were asked to
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
29
read the story along with the researcher. The main story was also displayed on the
document camera so the students could see the page the class was reading.
Intervention / Treatment
The researcher conducted the study during an eight-week period starting March
16, 2015 and concluding the week of May 4, 2015. The researcher conducted the study
for six of the eight weeks because of spring break the week of March 30 and benchmark
testing the week of April 20. At the beginning of each week, the researcher gave a pre-
test in which all students circled the vocabulary word that matched the picture shown on
the pre-test. Each picture had three word choices from which the students could choose.
After the students completed the pre-assessment on Monday, the researcher read aloud
one of the two picture books to the entire class. The first picture book was reread on
Tuesday and the second picture book was read on Wednesday and Thursday. The
researcher discussed the read-alouds and teacher-selected vocabulary words multiple
times throughout the week. At the end of the week, the researcher gave the usual basal
reading tests to all students, administered the vocabulary post-test to all students, and met
with three of six selected students individually along with three randomly selected
students and checked their reading comprehension of the Journeys story using a retelling
rubric. This was done to see if the students were able to apply the vocabulary to their
comprehension and to see if the students used any of the new vocabulary when retelling
the story. Table 1 presents the rotation of the students as they were assessed with an oral
retelling of the stories.
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
30
Table 1
Rotation of Students for Journeys Story Retelling
Week of March
16
March
23
March
30
April
6
April
13
April 20 April
27
May
4
Participants 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 Spring
Break
4, 5, 6 1, 2, 3 Benchmark
Testing
1, 2,
3
4, 5,
6
Non-
participants
7,8, 9 10,11,
12
Spring
Break
13,
14, 15
16,
17, 18
Benchmark
Testing
19,
20, 7
8, 9,
10
Students 4, 5, 6 conferenced on two consecutive weeks because the week of March 23 the
students retold a non-fiction story and the week of April 6 students retold a fiction story,
if they would have waited unit the week of April 13 they would have retold two
consecutive non-fiction stories.
Data Collection
The researcher collected qualitative and quantitative data from a variety of
sources. The qualitative data came from the comments recorded by the researcher on the
retelling rubric. The quantitative data came from the scores from weekly Journeys
(Baumann et al., 2011) basal series comprehension test, the numerical scores on the
retelling rubric, and teacher created vocabulary pre and post-tests.
Using Teacher Read-Alouds
31
Basal reading series comprehension. The comprehension tests were comprised
of 10 multiple-choice questions, and the students had three answer choices per question.
The comprehension questions were read aloud to the whole class, and the students chose
the answer that best answered the question. The students were allowed to take as much
time as needed to answer the questions. Each test took an average of 10-20 minutes to
complete. In Appendix A is an example of a comprehension test with three of the four
researcher-selected vocabulary words from the week underlined.
Retelling rubric. The researcher used the Fiction or Nonfiction Retelling Scoring
Form from the Reading A-Z website (http://www.readinga-z.com) and asked students to
retell the main story in the basal reader. Appendix B is an example of the fiction retelling
form and Appendix C is an example of the non-fiction retelling form. The retelling
rubric consisted of six key elements that were scored on a three point system. Three
points were given for a completely detailed retell, two points were given for a partial
retell, one point was given for a fragmentary or sketchy retell, and zero points were given
for an inaccurate retell. The researcher provided up to five to six prompts to help the
student with the retell. The students were also scored for amount of prompting they
needed. The students were given one point for high prompting, two points for medium
prompting, and three points for no prompting. The researcher added the total number of
points earned for all elements. The students were leveled as either skilled, developing, or
needs work. In order for the student to be skilled, the total must range between 15-21
points, developing is 8-14 points, and needs work fell within 0-7 points. Appendix D is
the completed fiction retelling form and Appendix E is the completed non-fiction